Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

Ironically, if you have money.. you are free not to have children. If you need help for healthcare, either get it through your employer or through a goverment program, then you don't.

Yet... haven't several here essentially argued that people with money are the ones who should be having the kids?

Night Strike wrote: That's specific welfare, not general welfare. And if contraceptives are so much better for a company's budget, they would choose to provide it without governmental mandates. These mandates are for the government to force their views on people who disagree with contraceptives and to earn votes through handouts from another constituency.

I see, so people working for corporations run by CEOs who are Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to coverage for blood transfusions?

People working for Christian Scientists or Scientologists must only go to Christian Science Or Scientology Practitioners, respectively.. unless they want to pay the FULL, not tax-free cost of coverage?

And what is next? Declarations that some companies should not be forced to hire women, or to hire people of different races... perhaps even people married to someone of another race.

AND... before you start dismissing this as "spurious" and "irrelevant", stop and think. Why is it that THIS belief gets such precedence, unlike any of those which are very much firmly held by members of various churches.

The Amish do recieve some few exceptions, but they are heavily proscribed. Similarly, some conscientious objectors get some consideration. However, each of those involved them and their families. NO where is a company allowed to just decide to deny a legally mandated benefit to EMPLOYEES, to other people, simply because the owners dislike it, .The answer is pretty clear. If you dislike the rules required in doing a business, then you have no business doing business in this country!

As a US government employee, my colleague was very much spurned by male visitors from the mideast, people who were supposed to be learning our techniques, but who considered learning from a woman to be beneath them.

Sorry, but freedom is not about you doing just what you want, its ALSO about acknowledging that other people have rights and that your right to dictate stops when you are denying other people the right to do as they see fit, in this case, to recieve the medical care they and their doctors feel is warranted.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

They are allowing corporations, employers of more than 50 people to decide to not cover certain medical procedures and medications based on the employer's religious or other preference, and because most people cannot afford medical care without insurance ... yes, it is effectively allowing some wealthier individuals to deny this to people they happen to employ, whether they are members of the same church and subscribe to similar beliefs or not.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

Ironically, if you have money.. you are free not to have children. If you need help for healthcare, either get it through your employer or through a goverment program, then you don't.

Yet... haven't several here essentially argued that people with money are the ones who should be having the kids?

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND... before you start dismissing this as "spurious" and "irrelevant", stop and think. Why is it that THIS belief gets such precedence, unlike any of those which are very much firmly held by members of various churches.

Because contraceptives to prevent pregnancies is a personal choice, not a treatment of a medical condition. If a person wants contraceptives for family planning, then they can pay the $9 per month it takes to buy the generic pills. It's not the proper role of the government to force all employers to pay for all forms of elective medications regardless of their costs.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sorry, but freedom is not about you doing just what you want, its ALSO about acknowledging that other people have rights and that your right to dictate stops when you are denying other people the right to do as they see fit, in this case, to recieve the medical care they and their doctors feel is warranted.

How is a person being denied medical care? Are their employers blocking them from buying their own birth control with their own money? All we're asking for is to keep freedoms of employers to pay for the coverage they see as necessary, not mandates on elective coverage from the government. We might as well force employers to pay for all types of elective plastic surgery as well since some people may need that to enhance their self-esteem. They should all be forced to provide liposuction and other fat-reducing treatments as well because of the obesity problem we have.

PLAYER57832 wrote:They are allowing corporations, employers of more than 50 people to decide to not cover certain medical procedures and medications based on the employer's religious or other preference, and because most people cannot afford medical care without insurance ... yes, it is effectively allowing some wealthier individuals to deny this to people they happen to employ, whether they are members of the same church and subscribe to similar beliefs or not.

$9 a month. That can be afforded by the vast majority of people in the modern United States if they really want it. And if they can't afford it, I'm sure organizations like Planned Parenthood would be happy to divert some of their money gained from abortions that cost hundreds of dollars to provide the contraceptives for free.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND... before you start dismissing this as "spurious" and "irrelevant", stop and think. Why is it that THIS belief gets such precedence, unlike any of those which are very much firmly held by members of various churches.

Because contraceptives to prevent pregnancies is a personal choice, not a treatment of a medical condition. If a person wants contraceptives for family planning, then they can pay the $9 per month it takes to buy the generic pills. It's not the proper role of the government to force all employers to pay for all forms of elective medications regardless of their costs.

A. it is a medical item. Just because it is only for women or about pregnancy doesn't change that. IF it WERE just about not getting pregnant, then the rythm method or a few other techniques could be used. Funny part is most of those require MALE control, restraint, ability. For women to control their own reproductivity, the pill is the best and sometimes the only method that works.

B. it costs a LOT more than $9 a month, even for generic. Also, its a hormone and like any hormone, is not a "one size fits all" deal. There was exactly ONE type I could use (tried 5 ), and definitely not for birth control purposes. In fact, if I had not been on it, I probably would not have been able to later get pregnant. (according to my doctor.. you can argue with them since you seem to feel you are a better doctor than they

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sorry, but freedom is not about you doing just what you want, its ALSO about acknowledging that other people have rights and that your right to dictate stops when you are denying other people the right to do as they see fit, in this case, to recieve the medical care they and their doctors feel is warranted.

How is a person being denied medical care? Are their employers blocking them from buying their own birth control with their own money?

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage.. that might be true in a SUBSIDIZED clinic in big cities, but not here and not in any of the roughly 12 different locations in 9 different states where I have lived (and did check with contacts there

BUT... even if it were true, $9 a month is $108 toward the $500 individual deductable and $1000 family deductable the moderate grade insurance policies now have (the lower end ones now have $1000 per person deductable). So, yes, it does take away from even what you call "real" medical care. AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

BUT.. the real issue is what right do you, not a medical doctor, or Physicians Assistant have to decide that this medication is not necessary. You have never and will never experience the symptoms women experience, have no idea what is involved. You are messing not just with my rights, but my doctor's right to practice medicine.

Night Strike wrote: All we're asking for is to keep freedoms of employers to pay for the coverage they see as necessary, not mandates on elective coverage from the government. We might as well force employers to pay for all types of elective plastic surgery as well since some people may need that to enhance their self-esteem. They should all be forced to provide liposuction and other fat-reducing treatments as well because of the obesity problem we have.

No, your asking to allow employers, employers with no medical training or knowledge of their employees personal medical histories to make medical decisions for them.

Those other situations have been deemed by the medical profession, by trained doctors, to be optional. HOWEVER, the irony is a lot of employers do cover those things, but now will elect not to cover birth control for women.

You have tried to claim that women with medical necessity can still get it. But, you have no idea what is required, the expense of tests, etc needed to make that determination. You have, flatly no medical knowledge and are claiming that you do becuase it meets your POLITICAL desires.

Again, you are demanding that employers be allowed to make medical decisions.

NOTE-- I would be very happy to have all medical insurance completely divested from employers. However, that is an even bigger anathema to you, becuase it essentially means some kind of socialized system.

PLAYER57832 wrote:They are allowing corporations, employers of more than 50 people to decide to not cover certain medical procedures and medications based on the employer's religious or other preference, and because most people cannot afford medical care without insurance ... yes, it is effectively allowing some wealthier individuals to deny this to people they happen to employ, whether they are members of the same church and subscribe to similar beliefs or not.

$9 a month. That can be afforded by the vast majority of people in the modern United States if they really want it.[/quote]Your figures are wrong. According to Planned Parenthood, the average cost is $15 to $50 a month. BUT, as the article below points out, if the cheapest method is ineffective or difficult to use (more touchy, etc.) then it becomes very expensive indeed to deal with an unitended pregnancy (whether that means raising the child, giving it up for adoption or other issues).

Night Strike wrote: And if they can't afford it, I'm sure organizations like Planned Parenthood would be happy to divert some of their money gained from abortions that cost hundreds of dollars to provide the contraceptives for free.

Well, this pretty much shows yoru REAL thinking... and just exactly how inaccurate your "data" is.

And, there is this as well. Employers are constantly opting for cheaper and cheaper insurance, without regard for how effective the policies they obtain are. how long do you think it will be before ALL employers stop offering birth control? I am sure a few prominent cases will fight this in court on somewhat legitimate religious grounds, but the real impact is that employers will get to decide... and decide something that mostly won't impact them, it will only impact women. (because even today, most employers, as opposed to workers are still men).

PLAYER57832 wrote:People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

Is the $9 your CO-PAY for the BC medication or the actual cost? Because my wife's generic BC is $35 a month (actual cost)... but when we had different insurance it was only $7 because that was what the co-pay was...

PLAYER57832 wrote:People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

Then it is SUBSIDIZED by MY taxes.

My figures, to contrast come from nationwide statistics, not some carefully selected data that ignores the reality that just because generics work for your female partner doesn't mean they work for every woman.

But hey, understanding that would require you do actually pay attention to medical science instead of politics!

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

ONLY if you have another reason to see the doctor. You seem to have forgotten that part.

Otherwise, most insurance plans only cover exams every 2 years, not every year or every 6 months as is needed for many birth control methods. In fact, many insurance policies carefully do NOT cover general physicals.

So.. again, you assume, rather than actually doing any research to verify before you start deciding you have the right to tell other people how to live.

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

ONLY if you have another reason to see the doctor. You seem to have forgotten that part.

Otherwise, most insurance plans only cover exams every 2 years, not every year or every 6 months as is needed for many birth control methods. In fact, many insurance policies carefully do NOT cover general physicals.

Actually under the new healthcare law, annual well visits, among many other preventive services now must be offered at $0 out of pocket costs, unless your plan grandfathered themselves of course. Even if they grandfathered, that (I believe) will end in 2014.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

ONLY if you have another reason to see the doctor. You seem to have forgotten that part.

Otherwise, most insurance plans only cover exams every 2 years, not every year or every 6 months as is needed for many birth control methods. In fact, many insurance policies carefully do NOT cover general physicals.

Actually under the new healthcare law, annual well visits, among many other preventive services now must be offered at $0 out of pocket costs, unless your plan grandfathered themselves of course. Even if they grandfathered, that (I believe) will end in 2014.

Excpet Nightstrike is demanding that Obamacare be rescinded, so if he had his way then we would go back to it not being covered. My basic point is that NIghtstrike objects without even being aware that this is a new change. He is under the impression that this has always been true for everyone. As you noted, it is not now, and won't be unless the provisions of Obama Care are continued.

Also, he has a habit of pretending that the absolute lowest cost found anywhere is some kind of average widely available.... and ignores any real medical reasons why costs might vary.

PLAYER57832 wrote:People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

Is the $9 your CO-PAY for the BC medication or the actual cost? Because my wife's generic BC is $35 a month (actual cost)... but when we had different insurance it was only $7 because that was what the co-pay was...

Actual cost as we don't use our insurance card for it and were paying that amount both before and after having insurance.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

Then it is SUBSIDIZED by MY taxes.

Highly doubtful. I don't live off the government and demand someone else pay for the things I need.

Night Strike wrote:Highly doubtful. I don't live off the government and demand someone else pay for the things I need.

Typical costs:

For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month. For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.

Additional costs:

Birth control pills are available only with a prescription; getting one requires visiting a doctor for a pelvic exam and sexually transmitted disease tests. This can cost $35 to $200, or a copay of $10 to $30 for patients covered by health insurance.

There are more than 40 brands of birth control pills available in the United States, each with slightly different doses or forms of hormones. Because women's bodies can react to even slight changes in formulation, sometimes several brands will have to be tried, with the help of a doctor, to get the fewest negative side effects -- such as mood changes or weight gain -- or the desired positive side effects -- such as better skin and less menstrual cramping.

(Remember, each time the woman has to try something new, she's got that up-to-$200 exam fee in addition to the up-to-$50 for the medication.)

Discounts:

Clinics such as those operated by Planned Parenthood offer discounted birth control pills to women who qualify. And most college campus health centers do the same for enrolled students. In most states, Wal-Mart, Target and Kroger pharmacies offer a limited selection of generic birth control pills for $9 per month.

I think that must be where NS gets the birth control; interestingly, though, if those retailers are offering a discount, it means consumers are paying for it by higher prices on other products, but NS is okay with being subsidized by consumers, as long as it's not subsidized by taxpayers.

This section was interesting:Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

PLAYER57832 wrote:People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

Is the $9 your CO-PAY for the BC medication or the actual cost? Because my wife's generic BC is $35 a month (actual cost)... but when we had different insurance it was only $7 because that was what the co-pay was...

Actual cost as we don't use our insurance card for it and were paying that amount both before and after having insurance.

PLAYER57832 wrote:People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

Then it is SUBSIDIZED by MY taxes.

Highly doubtful. I don't live off the government and demand someone else pay for the things I need.

Sure, once its already here..but you are very fond of ignoring how many other people paid to make sure the medicines and services you now use came into being.

Let's just put it this way... EVERY figure I can find says that the average cost of birth control is between $15 and $35. The AVERAGE. That means some people get it lower, some higher. You apparently are fortunate to find a lower cost source. That doesn't mean it is THE cost that everyone can get. Also. you specifically said you get a generic version, but hormones are not like aspirine or even penicillin, where the generic works exactly the same as the name-brand. Very, very minor differences make a BIG deal in hormones.

So, like I said... you ignore medicine, claim that the lowest cost you find is "the" cost.. and then pretend you actually know what you are talking about.

Oh yeah..and you like to throw out idiotic claims like saying my family is (or ever has been) on welfare... I want kids to just die, etc, etc, etc....

You are not simply ignorant, but wilfully and intentionally igorant of facts in a way that harms everyone around you.

Player, are you ever going to end your obsession about being handed free birth control (that was mandated by the HHS secretary and never written into the law by Congress) and start discussing all the massive tax increases and harmful effects on the economy this law is enacting?

Night Strike wrote:Player, are you ever going to end your obsession about being handed free birth control (that was mandated by the HHS secretary and never written into the law by Congress) and start discussing all the massive tax increases and harmful effects on the economy this law is enacting?

Funny how my saying you have your data incorrect, and proving it makes me "obsessive", but you declaring that you have the right to limit women's healthcare based on your personal beliefs is "just normal".

When will I stop correcting you?Probably about the time you stop obsessing over denying millions of women care they need because you seem to believe employers deciding to buy health insurance instead of paying better wages, beginning in the 1940's when wages were stymied, and continued because they get tax breaks they don't get by offering "mere" wages... somehow gives those employers the right to dictate ANYTHING about the care people recieve.

Night Strike wrote:Player, are you ever going to end your obsession about being handed free birth control (that was mandated by the HHS secretary and never written into the law by Congress) and start discussing all the massive tax increases and harmful effects on the economy this law is enacting?

Funny how my saying you have your data incorrect, and proving it makes me "obsessive", but you declaring that you have the right to limit women's healthcare based on your personal beliefs is "just normal".

When will I stop correcting you?Probably about the time you stop obsessing over denying millions of women care they need because you seem to believe employers deciding to buy health insurance instead of paying better wages, beginning in the 1940's when wages were stymied, and continued because they get tax breaks they don't get by offering "mere" wages... somehow gives those employers the right to dictate ANYTHING about the care people recieve.

It's amazing how "not paying for the entire cost of any form of an elective medication" has suddenly become "limiting rights" and "denying coverage". How many rights were being limited and denied prior to Obamacare? Were employers actually banning their employees from buying their own birth control? Why must everything YOU want be paid for by someone else? When are you and all the other liberals going to start paying for your own needs and wants?

By the way, why do you keep ignoring all the Obamacare taxes that have gone into effect at the first of this year that will raise the price of medical care and cost jobs?

Purely philosophically speaking (as in I don't know ebough about the politics) if you say to someone "I will pay for your healthcare costs" as part of a compensation package for employing them that doesn't automatically give you the right to decide on someone's healthcare choices. Those decisions are made by individuals in consultation with their doctor. The employer doesn't (and shouldn't) go along to doctor appointments to give their opinion on the best treatment, or what treatment they will allow.

If you say it does, then by the same standards you could say that the employer has the right to force a Jehovah's Witness to have a blood transfusion for their own good, or to force a catholic to have birth control implants, or force a pro-life christian to have an abortion.

The employer can get around this by writing into the contract exactly what they will and will not pay for, but while they leave it as general "healthcare" then they give the employees the right to have any health treatment they choose to that has been prescribed by a qualified and registered doctor.

Night Strike wrote:Player, are you ever going to end your obsession about being handed free birth control (that was mandated by the HHS secretary and never written into the law by Congress) and start discussing all the massive tax increases and harmful effects on the economy this law is enacting?

Funny how my saying you have your data incorrect, and proving it makes me "obsessive", but you declaring that you have the right to limit women's healthcare based on your personal beliefs is "just normal".

When will I stop correcting you?Probably about the time you stop obsessing over denying millions of women care they need because you seem to believe employers deciding to buy health insurance instead of paying better wages, beginning in the 1940's when wages were stymied, and continued because they get tax breaks they don't get by offering "mere" wages... somehow gives those employers the right to dictate ANYTHING about the care people recieve.

It's amazing how "not paying for the entire cost of any form of an elective medication" has suddenly become "limiting rights" and "denying coverage". How many rights were being limited and denied prior to Obamacare? Were employers actually banning their employees from buying their own birth control? Why

Insurance is not owned by the employer. It is provided as a cheap way to give added wages.

When employers say they "don't want to pay" they are denying wages. That it happens to come in the form of insurance is utterly irrelevant. That is why insurance is mandated and it is why there are no religious exemptions except for direct church employees.. not for Jehovah's witnesses, not for Christian Scientists and certainly not for this new breed that wants to claim attacking women's healthcare is some kind of religious mandate.

must everything YOU want be paid for by someone else? When are you and all the other liberals going to start paying for your own needs and wants?

The truth is your lifestyle depends very much upon thousands of people who work for so low of wages that they depend upon government subsidies just to have a reasonable place to live and to feed their kids. Just becuase you are not directly recieving food stamps doesn't relieve you of responsibility for ensuring that the people who pack your food, pick it, who give you gas... and do millions of other jobs needed for your lifestyle to be what it is... get to have resonably decent lives.

You want to pretent that healthcare is some kind of luxury that only the wealthy get to have, that things like decent housing and food are just not necessary for seniors, and neither is healthcare.. never mind that they PAID for it. They paid for it by setting up the system, they paid in blood and sweat and they paid in dollars.

What every happened to compassion, judge not lest you be judged and oh yeah.. care for the widows and orphans?.. along with don't muzzle the ox that grinds your grain.

Dollars are not the only thing that matters, nor are they the only kind of payment exacted in this world. You pretend that the world revolves around your concept of money and ignore what actually happens when you make those claims, which is that MILLIONS of people in this country alone have to do with less to support your lifestyle and the lifestyles of those who are making more than 250K.

You don't earn anything on your own. You live in a world with other people and depend on them to get you your food, your gas, safe roads, to tend your and your neighbors kids, etc, etc. You cannot just "opt out" and pretend these things don't benefit you with honesty. What every happened to compassion, judge not lest you be judged and oh yeah.. care for the widows and orphans?.. along with don't muzzle the ox that grinds your grain

Night Strike wrote:By the way, why do you keep ignoring all the Obamacare taxes that have gone into effect at the first of this year that will raise the price of medical care and cost jobs?

hmm... well, whether you have the right to dictate women's health care was the subject of my past few posts.

BUT.. if you want to get into that, how about the fact that I now actually get to enjoy the insurance for which I am paying , because the insurance company is not allowed to claim "pre-existing condition" exclusion for essentially any problem.

Healthcare costs money. That is a fact. It is also a fact that our country pays far more for it than any other nation because of hard-headed, unthinking rhetoric like you have spouted off claiming anything to do with government mandates or insurance coverage is just plain wrong.

Blame yourself!

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You don't earn anything on your own. You live in a world with other people and depend on them to get you your food, your gas, safe roads, to tend your and your neighbors kids, etc, etc. You cannot just "opt out" and pretend these things don't benefit you with honesty.

And those people get paid for the services and products I get from them. When I get a haircut, I pay my barber. When I fill up my car's gas tank, all the people who were involved in getting it to my point of sale get paid. When the business I work for sells our products, that transaction goes to help pay for my wages and benefits. It's not like I'm just going around stealing products from other people: they get paid for the things I want and need. It's not also my job to pay for their personal needs and wants through higher taxes. They earn wages, so they can buy the things they need just like I earn a wage and buy the things I need.

PLAYER57832 wrote:What every happened to compassion, judge not lest you be judged and oh yeah.. care for the widows and orphans?.. along with don't muzzle the ox that grinds your grain

That's what individuals are charged to do. That doesn't mean having their money confiscated by the government and inefficiently redistributed to people.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:By the way, why do you keep ignoring all the Obamacare taxes that have gone into effect at the first of this year that will raise the price of medical care and cost jobs?

hmm... well, whether you have the right to dictate women's health care was the subject of my past few posts.

BUT.. if you want to get into that, how about the fact that I now actually get to enjoy the insurance for which I am paying , because the insurance company is not allowed to claim "pre-existing condition" exclusion for essentially any problem.

Healthcare costs money. That is a fact. It is also a fact that our country pays far more for it than any other nation because of hard-headed, unthinking rhetoric like you have spouted off claiming anything to do with government mandates or insurance coverage is just plain wrong.

Blame yourself!

Government doesn't cause the cost of things to go up unnecessarily? BS. Just take the 2.3% medical device tax that Obamacare has added to the system. Do you really think that's going to lower health care costs and make it more affordable to more people? Why has health care premiums continued to go up by 8-10% annually since Obamacare was passed? When you force insurance companies to provide insurance to the previously uninsurable for the exact same cost, then costs will go up for everybody to pay for those expenses. It's basic economics.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Insurance is not owned by the employer. It is provided as a cheap way to give added wages.

It's because of governmental regulations that caused health insurance to become the ONLY insurance model that is provided by an employer instead of an individual buying their own. Remove the employer from the system and individuals can both get paid more in real wages and go out and buy plans that would exactly meet their needs.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The truth is your lifestyle depends very much upon thousands of people

so you're saying that since i learned a trade i should subsidize the lives of others who didn't?why did i even learn a trade? what benefits do i get out of it?

PLAYER57832 wrote:You want to pretent that healthcare is some kind of luxury that only the wealthy get to have

does contraceptives cost millions of dollars? or would it cost the same as say a few trips to mcdonalds?

i'm not wealthy and i just had some dental work done without insurance. but of course i saved my money and did without a flatscreen tv to get it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:things like decent housing and food are just not necessary for seniours, and neither is healthcare.. never mind that they PAID for it. They paid for it by setting up the system, they paid in blood and sweat and they paid in dollars.

this is silly. no one is wanting to take healthcare, housing and food away from the seniors that paid for it. the affordable care act subsidizes much more than that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:and do millions of other jobs needed for your lifestyle to be what it is... get to have resonably decent lives.

this is all relative, most of the people who came here (america) left lives much worse than the ones that think they have it bad now. they came here for a chance to do better, not because there were wealthy people giving money away.

PLAYER57832 wrote:What every happened to compassion, judge not lest you be judged and oh yeah.. care for the widows and orphans?.. along with don't muzzle the ox that grinds your grain.

what happened to spare the rod spoil the child, god helps those that help themselves, waste not want not, live within your means, penny saved penny earned, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man....... blah blah.

PLAYER57832 wrote:which is that MILLIONS of people in this country alone have to do with less to support your lifestyle and the lifestyles of those who are making more than 250K.

is this the path they choose? i know i can get by on very little. so i know others can do it to. if you really try and think about it, maybe you'd see it too.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You don't earn anything on your own.

blah blah blah. i know obama is your hero. this country functions as a whole yes. but you get out of it what you put in.

PLAYER57832 wrote:things like decent housing and food are just not necessary for seniours, and neither is healthcare.. never mind that they PAID for it. They paid for it by setting up the system, they paid in blood and sweat and they paid in dollars.

this is silly. no one is wanting to take healthcare, housing and food away from the seniors that paid for it. the affordable care act subsidizes much more than that.

Actually, seniors didn't pay enough for their healthcare OR their Social Security, they paid enough for about five years of what they take but take for approximately 25 years.

Similarly, folks on Unemployment PAID for what they take.

And, many on foodstamps, Welfare or WIC paid for what they take.

Granted, all of these: Seniors, Unemployed, those on foodstamps/welfare/WIC are taking "more" than they paid in.

But why should Seniors get "exempted" from your scorn when they're just as guilty as those others - excluding those who are downright committing fraud, which should be found and prosecuted but still won't fix the problem that there are those Taking more than they paid in.

Also, do you believe Hospitals should get paid for their services? Well, so does the Affordable Care Act.

What the Act does is, make sure that doctors and hospitals who MUST treat those who come through their doors, will get paid for it directly, rather than indirectly or not at all.

You see, the Govm't already "subsidizes" treatment of the indigent. Hospitals MUST treat emergencies, which means, the docs that work at those hospitals MUST treat those emergencies, with no hope of collecting. In turn, this raises the costs for everyone else.

Further, hospitals work out "rates" for those who have insurance; the insurance companies don't pay the same amount that the uninsured must pay for the same treatment, how fair is that, NOT!

PLAYER57832 wrote:The truth is your lifestyle depends very much upon thousands of people

so you're saying that since i learned a trade i should subsidize the lives of others who didn't?why did i even learn a trade? what benefits do i get out of it?

Benefit, yes. But that doesn't mean folks without a degree should starve or live on the street or in dangerous housing.

Furthermore, a LOT of the people who work for low wages are skilled, but their companies were downsized or there just are more people wanting jobs in that field than there are.

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You want to pretent that healthcare is some kind of luxury that only the wealthy get to have

does contraceptives cost millions of dollars? or would it cost the same as say a few trips to mcdonalds?[/quote]That is not really the point. The point is that we pay for insurance, and now employers are claiming the right to deny specific types of coverage because they just don't happen to like that coverage.

Further, the cost to society for not giving women basic health care, including sometimes birth control or other "female" procedures is high. This is not about being cost-effective, it is truly about a few supposedly religious folks, mostly in heavily male-dominated churches deciding that women's needs are "just optional".

It is about limiting women's ability to work, becuase without birth control, many women cannot work. It is not about health.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:i'm not wealthy and i just had some dental work done without insurance. but of course i saved my money and did without a flatscreen tv to get it.

And yet you just said you were a skilled worker, so not someone working for minimum wage or close to that.

The claim that this is about doing without "flatscreen TVs" and other luxuries is condescending claptrap, not reality. Our country used to be a place where honest, hard-working people could "make it". That is quickly receding, and we are being told everything is "too expensive" right when the top 2% of wage earners have seen their incomes grow by magnitudes. THAT is the problem.

Also, in case you missed it... a truly universal healthcare system such as is found in EVERY other developed country and quite a few not so developed countries is CHEAPER, by far than our system.

But some wealthy, powerful people -- likley with heavy investments in the pharmeceutical companies and other for profit health systems (they do pay a good return right now), have convinced a lot of Americans that anything close to socialized medicine means terrible care, despite all evidence to the contrary.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:things like decent housing and food are just not necessary for seniours, and neither is healthcare.. never mind that they PAID for it. They paid for it by setting up the system, they paid in blood and sweat and they paid in dollars.

this is silly. no one is wanting to take healthcare, housing and food away from the seniors that paid for it. the affordable care act subsidizes much more than that.

I see, so after cutting Medicare and Social Security, what exactly are they .. and we, when the time comes, to use for money? These programs are successful. The problem is that no additional money has been put into them, instead the Social security fund was used as a kind of big bank for Reagan and Bush cronies, (along with other presidents since).

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:and do millions of other jobs needed for your lifestyle to be what it is... get to have resonably decent lives.

this is all relative, most of the people who came here (america) left lives much worse than the ones that think they have it bad now. they came here for a chance to do better, not because there were wealthy people giving money away.

Oh, it is VERY relative. I am not talking about immigrants, and when the 2% see their income, primarily through investments, increase by leaps and bounds at the exact same time they keep shutting down factories, laying people off, denying pay raises... when the CEOs and higher executives in companies take huge bonuses, bonuses unheard of just a few decades ago and THEN claim they cannot pay even a dime more to their employees... it is very, very relevant.

That life in other countries is worse is not an excuse to make the US sink to the gutter, too.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:What every happened to compassion, judge not lest you be judged and oh yeah.. care for the widows and orphans?.. along with don't muzzle the ox that grinds your grain.

what happened to spare the rod spoil the child, god helps those that help themselves, waste not want not, live within your means, penny saved penny earned, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man....... blah blah.

What a bunch of condescendin ignorant blabber. Do you HONESTLY believe that someone working 40+ hours a day doesn't know how to work, doesn't deserve to eat and have a decent house?

Then you are disgusting.

[

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:quote="PLAYER57832"]which is that MILLIONS of people in this country alone have to do with less to support your lifestyle and the lifestyles of those who are making more than 250K.

is this the path they choose? i know i can get by on very little. so i know others can do it to. if you really try and think about it, maybe you'd see it too.[/quote]Oh please. I am the master of saving money and living cheaply. But you delude yourself if you think that making the right choices is all it takes. One illness, one setback.. that is all it takes to move MOST americans from a decent life to homelessness.

Sure, hard work matters, but nowadays it matters a heck of a lot less than having the money to invest in the stock market and then choosing the right investments. Further, the "right" investments often have little to do with work or direct sales profits. More money is made by shutting companies down (so-called "lean-sizing")

Stephen Covey talks about 2 managers. One complains about how terrible workers are today, how he cannot get good help, etc. Another has nothing but good to say about his employees.. they are not perfect, but mostly work hard, etc, etc. Teh real difference? It was not the workers, it was the manager. A bad manager blames the employees.

Today, blaming the poor has come back into fashion. It used to be pretty standard back in the 1900's... get tuberculosis or typhoid and you "deserved it", were "unclean" or living an "unhealthy lifestyle".

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:You don't earn anything on your own.

blah blah blah. i know obama is your hero. this country functions as a whole yes. but you get out of it what you put in.

You're an idiot. Hopefully you learn your lesson before destroying those around you.

You are not responding to what I am saying, you are simply reciting rhetoric you heard or read somewhere. Try thinking on your own for a change. It does wonders.